사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: (a) the plaintiff’s new argument in this court is added to the plaintiff’s new argument; and (b) the court of first instance’s 8-5-6 of the first instance judgment “the fact that the plaintiff appealeds against the above judgment and currently continues to serve in the court of final appeal” to read “the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive through the dismissal of appeal,” and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with
2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The fact that there is a claim of KRW 60 million against Plaintiff C” has become final and conclusive in the relevant civil procedure, and res judicata has occurred, and even if the subject matter of the lawsuit is not identical to that of the subsequent lawsuit, when the legal relationship of the previous lawsuit, which is res judicata, becomes a matter of prior lawsuit, the court of the subsequent lawsuit cannot render a judgment inconsistent with this. Nevertheless, the court of first instance held that the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 60 million against Plaintiff C does not exist against the res judicata is unlawful.”
The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment shall, in principle, affect only the parties, successors subsequent to the closure of pleadings, or persons who possess the object of claims on behalf of them, other persons who have become the plaintiff or defendant on behalf of them, except where it is stipulated that such res judicata effect on a third party in a family relation lawsuit or company-related lawsuit, etc. (Article 218(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act), and it cannot be deemed that res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on behalf of a third party on the part of the defendant who is a third party
(Supreme Court Decision 98Da18155 Decided June 9, 2000 cited by the Plaintiff is not appropriate to be invoked in this case as a matter of creditor subrogation lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.
3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.